Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?Just when you thought Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, could do nothing further to top herself, she does.
At a Tuesday morning debate with her Democratic rival Chris Coons, she appeared to be aggressively ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.
Making matters worse, the audience was actually filled with people with presumably more than a passing familiarity with the Constitution: law professors and students.
The Washington Post reports:
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Not only is this extraordinary because O'Donnell is running for the U.S. Senate, but she represents a political movement, the Tea Party, that has made a fierce adherence to the Constitution one of its fiercest principles.
Wow.
Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Christine O'Donnell Stuns Audience With 1st Amendment Gaffe
- FSTargetDrone
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7878
- Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
- Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Sure they do, just like they think Palin is. O'Stupid is just a variation on a theme (younger, unmarried, no kids) but she's very appealing to a lot of people.Azazal wrote:Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Azazal wrote: Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?
there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitution
Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Please give me a link to this.xerex wrote:Azazal wrote: Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?
there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitution
∞
XXXI
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
I'm not really suprised by this. The Tea Party movement had demonstrated that they are mostly ignorant of the constitution, and is more than happy to trample over it if it allows religion to play a greater role in politics.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
- SCRawl
- Has a bad feeling about this.
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
- Location: Burlington, Canada
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Well, just to play moron's advocate for the moment, it doesn't actually use the words "separation of church and state" anywhere in the document. The establishment clause is pretty explicit, but in language that may go over the heads (or beneath the notice) of the average Tea Party shit-for-brains. If they're not inclined to go looking for a reason to believe in the concept, it's not so hard to overlook the establishment clause.xerex wrote:there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitutionAzazal wrote: Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
- General Zod
- Never Shuts Up
- Posts: 29205
- Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
- Location: The Clearance Rack
- Contact:
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
That doesn't make her appear any better, really. Even if she was being strictly literal you have to be completely ignorant of every interpretation of the 1st amendment for that line of thinking to fool anyone who wasn't an abject moron.SCRawl wrote:Well, just to play moron's advocate for the moment, it doesn't actually use the words "separation of church and state" anywhere in the document. The establishment clause is pretty explicit, but in language that may go over the heads (or beneath the notice) of the average Tea Party shit-for-brains. If they're not inclined to go looking for a reason to believe in the concept, it's not so hard to overlook the establishment clause.xerex wrote:there are people on Palin's website who think O Donnell just proved that separation of church and state is not in the constitutionAzazal wrote: Seriously, people think she is qualified to run for office?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
- SCRawl
- Has a bad feeling about this.
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
- Location: Burlington, Canada
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Oh, I'm not making excuses for O'Donnell -- if she's running for such high office as Senator, she really ought to know better -- but rather for the chuckleheads who are posting on Palin's site, as suggested above. I'm willing to accept a lower level of U.S. Constitutional scholarship from them.General Zod wrote:That doesn't make her appear any better, really. Even if she was being strictly literal you have to be completely ignorant of every interpretation of the 1st amendment for that line of thinking to fool anyone who wasn't an abject moron.SCRawl wrote: Well, just to play moron's advocate for the moment, it doesn't actually use the words "separation of church and state" anywhere in the document. The establishment clause is pretty explicit, but in language that may go over the heads (or beneath the notice) of the average Tea Party shit-for-brains. If they're not inclined to go looking for a reason to believe in the concept, it's not so hard to overlook the establishment clause.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
I'm not surprised by this. The idea that separation between church and state is a lie created by activist, liberal judges is very popular among hardcore conservatives.
- SCRawl
- Has a bad feeling about this.
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
- Location: Burlington, Canada
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
You know, it's taken me longer than it should have, but this is all starting to make sense. O'Donnell doesn't give a squirt of piss whether or not she wins this race -- she's already won. (Winning the Senate race would be the cherry on top, but really it would just get in the way. Perhaps she's intentionally sabotaging her own campaign, though I'm not at all certain of that.) She'll be tapping into the same gravy train Palin has been riding since she resigned as governor, and for her, that's the end game. She's establishing her credentials as a True Believer, and that'll be good enough for her to be a celebrity for years, raking in five or six figures per appearance to speak to the Right-thinking doofuses who got her nominated in the first place. It's a pretty good gig, and who cares if anyone will ever take her seriously outside of this core group.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
For convenience of discussion:
I've been in many sermons and religious meetings where people get up and say "the words S.O.C.A.S" aren't in there, therefore we SHOULD be able to put religion into politics. Her response isn't that surprising, and I expect the spin to follow in this vein.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” of grievances.
PRFYNAFBTFCP
Captain of the MFS Frigate of Pizazz +2 vs. Douchebags - Est vicis pro nonnullus suscito vir
"Are you an idiot? What demand do you think there is for aircraft carriers that aren't government?" - Captain Chewbacca
"I keep my eighteen wives in wonderfully appointed villas by bringing the underwear of god to the heathens. They will come to know God through well protected goodies." - Gandalf
"There is no such thing as being too righteous to understand." - Darth Wong
Captain of the MFS Frigate of Pizazz +2 vs. Douchebags - Est vicis pro nonnullus suscito vir
"Are you an idiot? What demand do you think there is for aircraft carriers that aren't government?" - Captain Chewbacca
"I keep my eighteen wives in wonderfully appointed villas by bringing the underwear of god to the heathens. They will come to know God through well protected goodies." - Gandalf
"There is no such thing as being too righteous to understand." - Darth Wong
- General Zod
- Never Shuts Up
- Posts: 29205
- Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
- Location: The Clearance Rack
- Contact:
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
I'd wager that the vast majority of the people who take that line of literal reasoning with separation of church and state don't really bother applying it to other aspects of the constitution.Kodiak wrote:For convenience of discussion:
I've been in many sermons and religious meetings where people get up and say "the words S.O.C.A.S" aren't in there, therefore we SHOULD be able to put religion into politics. Her response isn't that surprising, and I expect the spin to follow in this vein.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” of grievances.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
RE: SCRawl's point.
I've seen quite a bit of that lately. We had a candidate in our provincial riding run just to get her name and face out there, and subsequently began a successful career as a Realtor. She gave it another shot in 08 because she was fairly close in 04, but she didn't plan on actually winning, since our MLA is the incumbent since 93 and was Minister of Education at the time (IIRC), and Minister of Health now.
I've heard similar stories about one of the candidates for Mayor during our just-finished municipal election. He ran last election in a Liberal stronghold against a multi-term incumbent, and of course lost, but that was partly as a favour to the party to clear their name in that riding after some shady shit that occurred in 04. Story is that he ran for Mayor just to get his name out there, to help in his next bid for the Legislature (or perhaps to boost business; he is a Chartered Accountant).
I've seen quite a bit of that lately. We had a candidate in our provincial riding run just to get her name and face out there, and subsequently began a successful career as a Realtor. She gave it another shot in 08 because she was fairly close in 04, but she didn't plan on actually winning, since our MLA is the incumbent since 93 and was Minister of Education at the time (IIRC), and Minister of Health now.
I've heard similar stories about one of the candidates for Mayor during our just-finished municipal election. He ran last election in a Liberal stronghold against a multi-term incumbent, and of course lost, but that was partly as a favour to the party to clear their name in that riding after some shady shit that occurred in 04. Story is that he ran for Mayor just to get his name out there, to help in his next bid for the Legislature (or perhaps to boost business; he is a Chartered Accountant).
∞
XXXI
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
What's interesting here is not that she's a moron and a theocrat, but that she's a moron even by moron standards.
However, it appears that O'Donnell has no idea what the text of the First Amendment is, which at least would seem to expose her as a hypocrite.
I realize even this is barely news, as it certainly won't dent her support, but I find it interesting.
This is a bog-standard line."Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
If this isn't a simple gaffe, it is pretty devastating. The typical dishonest right-wing moron will try to spin the text of the 1st amendment so that it doesn't imply a true separation of church and state. You know, along the lines of "Suspiciously-Abrahamic monotheism isn't a 'religion,'" "it didn't occur to The Founders that there are religions other than denominations of Christianity," handwavy shit like that.When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
However, it appears that O'Donnell has no idea what the text of the First Amendment is, which at least would seem to expose her as a hypocrite.
I realize even this is barely news, as it certainly won't dent her support, but I find it interesting.
"I spit on metaphysics, sir."
"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty
This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal. -Tanasinn
"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty
This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal. -Tanasinn
You can't expect sodomy to ruin every conservative politician in this country. -Battlehymn Republic
My blog, please check out and comment! http://decepticylon.blogspot.comRe: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
If she wanted to do this spiel, couldn't she have found a better audience than law students and their teachers?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
- SCRawl
- Has a bad feeling about this.
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
- Location: Burlington, Canada
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Pfft, they're just liberal elite good-for-nothing establishment (insert epithet here). Ms. O'Donnell is speaking to the real Americans when she spouts her nonsense. Her audience this day just can't recognize the Truth when they hear it. She'll be cackling all the way to the bank by this time next year, mark my words.Thanas wrote:If she wanted to do this spiel, couldn't she have found a better audience than law students and their teachers?
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.
- Patrick Degan
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 14847
- Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
- Location: Orleanian in exile
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Does it really matter to Witch Christie whether she actually knows the text of the First Amendment or not? She knows what the Constitution "really means", and so do her idiot teabagger amen chorus. Actually reading the document in question is never going to be a requirement for these people. It all goes back to the idea of processing knowledge by "gut instinct".Anguirus wrote:However, it appears that O'Donnell has no idea what the text of the First Amendment is, which at least would seem to expose her as a hypocrite.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
- Pint0 Xtreme
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2430
- Joined: 2004-12-14 01:40am
- Location: The City of Angels
- Contact:
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
If you watch the video (at about 6:00) of the debate in question, Coons explicitly reads out loud the exact text of the first amendment and O'Donnell asks "that's in the first amendment?".Patrick Degan wrote:Does it really matter to Witch Christie whether she actually knows the text of the First Amendment or not? She knows what the Constitution "really means", and so do her idiot teabagger amen chorus. Actually reading the document in question is never going to be a requirement for these people. It all goes back to the idea of processing knowledge by "gut instinct".
- Ritterin Sophia
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5496
- Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
I think the idea is that if the Tea Party proposes enough batshit insane candidates by 2012, they'll have lowered the bar so thoroughly that Palin seems acceptable in comparison.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
- OmegaChief
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 904
- Joined: 2009-07-22 11:37am
- Location: Rainy Suburb, Northern England
- Contact:
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Oh my, it was there plan all along.General Schatten wrote:I think the idea is that if the Tea Party proposes enough batshit insane candidates by 2012, they'll have lowered the bar so thoroughly that Palin seems acceptable in comparison.
"Guys how do we make this candidate look even remotly votable?"
"Simple, we make every other choice either a democrat or utterly insane in comparison then we can't loose!"
This odyssey, this, exodus. Do we journey toward the promised land, or into the valley of the kings? Three decades ago I envisioned a new future for our species, and now that we are on the brink of realizing my dream, I feel only solitude, and regret. Has my entire life's work been a fool's crusade? Have I led my people into this desert, only to die?
-Admiral Aken Bosch, Supreme Commander of the Neo-Terran Front, NTF Iceni, 2367
-Admiral Aken Bosch, Supreme Commander of the Neo-Terran Front, NTF Iceni, 2367
- Count Chocula
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1821
- Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
- Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Her point is correct, as Kodiak thoughtfully noted by actually including the text of the amendment in question. It is one of the Constitution's, as President Obama pointed out in an interview, "charter of negative liberties." I.e. what the government can't do. It can't establish a state religion, period. In fact, the first part of Amdt. 1 says the Congress (federal government) can't establish a religion, and can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. That presumably includes the free exercise of whatever religious beliefs the various Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and other critters in DC have. Hell, Congress has an Office of the Chaplain. Probably paid for by taxes which is a no-no, but the wording of the amendment is pretty damn clear; in modern vernacular, the first two clauses may as well read "worship whatever you want, or nothing at all, but don't make any damn federal religion because Europe did that and it sucks!
There is a Constitution that explicitly separates church and state:
"Citizens of XXXXXX are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
In XXXXXX, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. "
That would be Article 52 of the Constitution of the USSR. It's Article 28 of the new, improved Russian Federation's Constitution.
Oh, and while most media and most of you are busy mocking O'Donnell for not "interpreting" the text of the first amendment, most of them and you are also ignoring Chris "Marxist" Coons' ignorance of the rest of Amendment 1:
If I were a Delaware voter, I'd pull the lever for O'Donnell. She's better looking than Coons, she's not a lawyer, and it's a fair bet she'll continue Biden's tradition of making "controversial" public statements, thus keeping zit-sized Delaware on the political map.
There is a Constitution that explicitly separates church and state:
"Citizens of XXXXXX are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
In XXXXXX, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. "
That would be Article 52 of the Constitution of the USSR. It's Article 28 of the new, improved Russian Federation's Constitution.
Oh, and while most media and most of you are busy mocking O'Donnell for not "interpreting" the text of the first amendment, most of them and you are also ignoring Chris "Marxist" Coons' ignorance of the rest of Amendment 1:
So he didn't know the other four parts and went whining for moderation. But that doesn't matter at all, no sir.Fox News wrote:Seemingly unfazed by the audience response, O'Donnell continued to press Coons to expound on the 1st Amendment throughout the debate.
"Can I ask you a question, Chris?" she said. "Can you name the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment?"
Coons would only respond, "I think the very first provision of the First Amendment is that a government shall make no establishment of religion, and before we get into a further debate about exactly which of us knows the Constitution better, how about we get the panel asking our questions today?"
If I were a Delaware voter, I'd pull the lever for O'Donnell. She's better looking than Coons, she's not a lawyer, and it's a fair bet she'll continue Biden's tradition of making "controversial" public statements, thus keeping zit-sized Delaware on the political map.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
As a matter of fact, Madison, who wrote it, expounded on the subject at great length. The office of the Chaplain is indeed very very unconstitutional, as is using religion in arguments before congress.Her point is correct, as Kodiak thoughtfully noted by actually including the text of the amendment in question. It is one of the Constitution's, as President Obama pointed out in an interview, "charter of negative liberties." I.e. what the government can't do. It can't establish a state religion, period. In fact, the first part of Amdt. 1 says the Congress (federal government) can't establish a religion, and can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. That presumably includes the free exercise of whatever religious beliefs the various Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and other critters in DC have. Hell, Congress has an Office of the Chaplain. Probably paid for by taxes which is a no-no, but the wording of the amendment is pretty damn clear; in modern vernacular, the first two clauses may as well read "worship whatever you want, or nothing at all, but don't make any damn federal religion because Europe did that and it sucks!
He was not referring to establishing a state religion. He was referring to any law regarding religion whatsoever. This happens to largely be the basis of the Lemon Test used by courts since the 70s.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Are you fucking kidding? He's not ignorant, he doesn't give a shit since she's just derailing the debate.
I mean, I'd bone her, but I wouldn't vote for her.
I mean, I'd bone her, but I wouldn't vote for her.
∞
XXXI
- Count Chocula
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1821
- Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
- Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
I actually found the whole issue rather amusing. Amendment 1 says "no state religion!" and four other pretty important things. O'Donnell sticks to strict interpretation. Fine. Coons says "separation of church and state! It's in the Constitution!" Factually wrong. Jefferson's and Madison's writings strongly argue that the state shall have no laws regarding religion. Fine again, and now we're just talking semantics and what the Constitution says versus what two of the founders said expanding on the text.
And it all turned into a big-ass, knee-jerk side show for the actual debate issues, which received NO attention; par for the course in election year politics. I feel like I'm back in middle school.
Hmm...maybe I'll ONLY vote for the candidates I'd bone! It would make voting an easy, 3-minute little bit of the old in-out.
And it all turned into a big-ass, knee-jerk side show for the actual debate issues, which received NO attention; par for the course in election year politics. I feel like I'm back in middle school.
Hmm...maybe I'll ONLY vote for the candidates I'd bone! It would make voting an easy, 3-minute little bit of the old in-out.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Christine O'Donnell, first amendment.. wha?
Except one of them wrote the fucking text. If anyone is to know exactly what it means, it would be him. The principle of separation of church and state is there, not the words.I actually found the whole issue rather amusing. Amendment 1 says "no state religion!" and four other pretty important things. O'Donnell sticks to strict interpretation. Fine. Coons says "separation of church and state! It's in the Constitution!" Factually wrong. Jefferson's and Madison's writings strongly argue that the state shall have no laws regarding religion. Fine again, and now we're just talking semantics and what the Constitution says versus what two of the founders said expanding on the text.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est